2 Content 8. LACK OF LEGAL SAFEGUARDS ............................... 48 8.1. Lack of information 48 8.2. Access to the outside world 49 1. MAIN FINDINGS 3 8.3. Interpreters 1.1. Methodologie and scope 4 8.4. The right to have a lawyer and obstacles to legal aid 49 2. EVROS IN THE CONTEXT OF GREEK AND 8.4.1. Ineffective access to lawyers 49 EUROPEAN MIGRATION (2010-2011) 5 8.4.2. Lack of legal aid 50 2.1. The Greek asylum reform: Where are 8.4.3. Legal aid provided by NGOs 50 the improvements? 5 8.4.4. Access to the files 51 2.2 The humanitarian crisis in Evros and 8.4.5. Lack of a proper place to meet the military response 6 with the lawyers 51 2.3 Evros today 8 8.4.6. Arbitrary denial of registration 2.4 The European Hypocrisy 10 of documents 51 2.5 Conclusion 10 8.5. Lack of safeguards against deportation 52 8.6. Lack of legal remedies against detention 52 3. EVROS ...................................................................... 11 8.6.1. Case law of Administrative Court of Alexan- droupolis – ineffective judical review 53 4. REFOULEMENT, READMISSIONS AND DEPORTATIONS ....................................................... 14 9. ASYLUM AND THE ASYLUM PROCEDURE 4.1. The Readmission Agreement between IN DETENTION ......................................................... 56 Greece and Turkey 15 9.1. Access to asylum and risk of refoulement 56 4.2.1. Readmission of vulnerable persons 17 9.2 Lack of guarantees in the asylum procedure 4.2.2. Readmission of asylum seekers 18 in detention 60 9.2.1. First interview 60 5. REGISTRATION AND SCREENING: 9.2.2. Lost documents or other personal items, A WHEEL OF MISFORTUNE ..................................... 21 denial to accept submitted documents in foreign language and no translation 6. DETENTION AND DETENTION CENTRES ................ 26 mechanism for documents 61 6.1. Detention 26 9.3 Decicions and appeals 61 6.2. Detention of asylum seekers 28 9.4 Withdrawal from asylum procedure 62 6.3. Detention conditions 29 9.5 Upon release: Lack of reception facilities – 6.3.1. Tychero borderguard station 30 effects on the asylum procedure 63 6.3.2. Feres borderguard station 31 6.3.3. Soufli borderguard station 32 10. MINORS .................................................................... 66 6.3.4. Fylakio detention centre 35 10.1 Detention conditions 66 6.4. Recent changes in detention practice 37 10.2 Duration of detention 69 6.5. Other detention centres: the example of Venna 39 10.3 Inappropriate guardianship 69 10.4 Wrong registration and screening 69 7. HEALTH .................................................................... 40 10.5 After release 74 7.1. Detention causes sickness 41 7.2. Ineffective screening at arrival 41 11. VIOLENCE ................................................................. 75 7.3. Insufficient number of specialised medical staff, 11.1 Ill-treatment by the police 75 inadequate medical infrastructure, inefficient 11.2 Sexuell harassment 79 medication and lack of co-ordination on the part 11.3 Lack of safeguards against violence 80 of the authorities 42 7.4. Access and communication with doctors 42 12. HUNGER STRIKES .................................................... 81 7.5. Inadequate response to health emergencies 44 7.6. Lack of psychlogical care and support 45 13. LOST AND DEAD AT THE BORDERS ........................ 87 7.7. Treatment of vulnerable groups 46 13.1. Survivors in detention 87 7.8. Lack of medical information and access to medical 13.2. Death at the border 88 attestation 47 14. ATTACHMENTS ........................................................ 93 3 1. Main Findings Greece has been repeatedly criticised for its human are cases of wrong nationality and age assessmet, while ■ rights violations,specifically for the appalling deten- there is no provision to challenge the procedure regarding tion conditions for immigrants in the border region Evros. this decision. Most important human rights institutions and organisa- tionshave published reports condemning the fundamental ■ Asylum seekers are automatically detained. Regularly, deficits in the Greek reception and protection system. they are being detained for the maximum detention period of up to six months, longer than persons who have not Following this harsh criticism, the Greek government applied for international protection. Detention functions declared its commitment to improve the asylum and re- as a deterrence measure for applying for asylum. ception system and therefore announced a national Action Plan 2010. However, so far there have been almost no ■ Migrants and refugees are deprived of basic rights in improvements. Human rights violations continue. What detention. There is no access to effective remedy against we have observed in Evros area is a multilevel deterrence deportation and detention. There is no legal aid, no in- system implemented by the Greek police and Frontex. formation, no interpretation. The detention in Evros is synonimous with brutality, despair and dehumanisation. In this case, calling an emergency Readmissions and risk of refoulement of «mass-immigration» has given the Greek government and the EU an excuse for violating human dignity. ■ The authorities automatically issue deportation orders against almost everybody without any individual Access to European territory, access to assessment of the case. international protection ■ There are cases of removals of people who have ■ The Greek government has begun to construct new requested international protection. physical barriers – a 130 km long moat and a border fence – in order to keep any migrants from entering its territory. ■ Amendments of the Readmission Protocol between These barriers will not keep people in need of international Greece and Turkey facilitate the deportation to the country protection from trying to cross the border. Instead, they in- of origin via Turkey without respect of the international crease the danger of border-crossings and can lead to more obligations and exposing the readmitted to further persons losing their lives while trying to reach European violations in Turkey. territory and international protection. ■ There is a risk of direct or indirect refoulement in viola- ■ People lose their lives while tying to cross the borders. tion of human rights law and the principle of non-refoule- The survivors stay in detention without proper care. ment. ■ Access to international protection is not guaranteed in No adequate treatment for vulnerable groups the Evros region. Protection seekers who have entered Greek territory often cannot file an asylum application with ■ No adequate reception conditions are provided for the responsible authorities and are deterred from doing so. vulnerable cases and people in need of international protection during detention and after release. Lack of legal safeguards and remedy ■ Vulnerable cases such as mental or physically sick or ■ All new arrivals are automatically put into detention, victims of torture stay in detention which deteriorates their without any individual assessment of the case. health condition. ■ A system to clearly identify age, nationality protection ■ Unaccompanied minors continue to be in detention status or vulnerability of new arrivals does not exist. under deplorable conditions. In praxis, they have no legal Consequently, there is no adequate treatment or referral representation. There are not enough reception centers for particularly vulnerable persons, such as unaccompanied and the existing ones do not provide address the basic minors, victims of torture etc, or protection seekers. There needs of the underage adequately. 4 1. Main Findings Detention conditions and police violence The missions and the follow-ups have been completed with the support of the Greek Refugee Council (GCR) and ■ Detainees continuously protest against detention specifically with the help of its lawyers in Evros. Additional demanding human rights and dignity. Instead of being information was drawn from research carried out by the In- heard in most of the times the authorities repress violently fomobile.3 these struggles. Furthermoe, our co-operation with lawyers and activists ■ Police violence in detention has been often reported in Turkey (Multeci Der4 in Izmir, Helsinki Assembly5 in during our missions. There is no effective complaint Istanbul and members of Kayki-Network) was essential, mechanism, no protection of the victims and impunity for both for understanding the situation of detainees and the perpetrators. people in need of international protection in Turkey and for the follow-up of specific cases of people returned from Greece to Turkey according to the Readmission Protocol 1.1. Methodology and scope between Turkey and Greece. This report is based on data collected during our missions One of our aims was to understand the changes brought from August 2010 until October 20111 in the detention to the Greek asylum system, during the transitional proce- centres of the Evros region (Feres, Tychero, Soufli, Fylakio). dure established by the new Presidential Decree 114/2010 In this period we have met 200 detainees, focusing on and the deployment of Frontex and specifically the RABIT vulnerable groups (unaccompanied minors, sick people unit, in Evros region which is the main entrance of migrants etc), asylum seekers, people in risk of being readmitted or to European territory and which by itself presents further whose deportation is feasible and/or whose registration regional particularities. of nationalities were clearly incorrect. Additionally, it